Question: A question that has been nagging me for so long: When the trio is chased by the Snatchers, why don't they just disapparate?
raywest
30th Oct 2023
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Answer: I've wondered the same thing. There's no explanation, but it could be argued they were just panicked when the Snatchers took them by surprise. For all their abilities, they are still kids and occasionally lack critical thinking and failed to have a fallback plan for such an event or if they somehow became separated. Of course, it serves the plot as the story needs for them to be transported to Malfoy Manor. You should submit this as a plot hole.
I think even adults can panic in scary situations and not think of something that seems like an obvious solution. I've read online "tips" for getting away from muggers/robbers, but when I was actually shot by one, none of those came to mind.
In one of the books, Mr. Weasley says that many adult wizards don't apparate. It needs to be precise and it feels uncomfortable. Some would rather use a Portkey or fly on a broomstick.
4th Nov 2019
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: This question might be more for the book, but Mad Eye said they would have to transport in ways the trace can't detect. But the trace would only detect magic used near an underage person. Harry is the only one who is underage. So they could have used a portkey. I understand that they need to cast a spell to make a portkey but they could have cast the spell before they were near Harry and then transported to the burrow. Or have I made a mistake?
Answer: The trace detects when an underaged wizard casts a magic spell whenever they are away from Hogwarts. It doesn't detect adult wizards using magic near a minor. If a portkey was used to transport Harry, it could have been detected when he touched it because he would be using magic. The safest and least detectable way to move him from point A to B, was to fly him there.
Answer: Two things. 1. You are not allowed to create an unauthorized portkey. The ministry must be aware of it. I think the incantation (portus) is traced. 2. Using a portkey is magical use, so the moment Harry touches it, the ministry would be alerted and possibly know where the portkey transported to.
Then how did Dumbledore get away with it in Order of the Phoenix when he made a portkey to get the children to Grimmauld Place?
Well he is an extremely powerful wizard and the headmaster of Hogwarts. I think he made it at Hogwarts yes? He could have had a trick up his sleeve to do it. Might be a bit more tricky for Mad-Eye and the rest whilst the Ministry is under control of deatheaters. Just too risky.
Also, using magic near an underage wizard isn't traced. Just when it is used by an underage wizard.
No, the trace is meant to detect magic used near an underaged wizard.
The wiki specifically says it's a trace of magic in the vicinity of an underage wizard, not the underage wizard him/herself. It's mentioned working like that by Alastair Moody in the books too.
When Harry used magic to repel the dementors that attacked him and Dudley in Order of the Phoenix, the Ministry of Magic instantly detected that he cast a patronus spell. He was immediately "charged" for using underage magic. What would happen when a young wizard was at home for the summer and holidays and is around adult wizards using magic all the time? The trace would be going off continually for every underaged magic person. It was mentioned in the books that if an underaged wizard did use magic at home, it could be confused with the adults who were casting spells.
Harry once got a warning from the "improper use of magic office" for casting a hover charm, even though it was Dobby who did it. I don't know where you get your information from, but it is wrong. The trace can only detect magic has been used, not who used it. This is explained by Alastair Moody in Deathly Hallows Chapter 4.
4th Jan 2023
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: How was Umbridge able to cast a patronus?
Answer: She casts it like any other witch or wizard by using her wand and saying "Expecto Patronum". It is considered advanced magic, but most magical people can learn how to do this. When Harry (disguised as Runcorn) entered her courtroom, she had already cast her cat patronus to keep the Dementors at a distance.
Casting a patronus requires a very happy memory, though. And considering that she seems to be very angry and never felt that she was given enough power, she must have never had a happy memory.
"Must" is total conjecture. Perfectly possible for an angry resentful person to have one happy memory to call on.
Villains still have personalities. Depending on what specifically makes Umbridge happy, she could easily have a lot of happy memories.
Umbridge seemed quite happy while torturing Harry with the punishment pen, when she was ejecting Trelawney from Hogwarts, when she ousted Dumbledore as Headmaster, happy in her devotion to Voldemort, and so on. Happiness is an individual thing. Her sense of happiness was quite perverse.
Only those who are pure of heart are capable of producing a Patronus. Those who aren't would be devoured by maggots that shoot out of the caster's wand. Umbridge wasn't pure of heart because of all of the horrible things she did, so shouldn't she have been eaten by maggots?
1st Jan 2023
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: It's been stated that the wand chooses the wizard. Why then, is Voldemort able to use Lucius' wand if the wand chose Lucius as his wizard?
Answer: A wizard can use any wand, but it will not perform as well as one that "chose" them. For example, although Voldemort could use Dumbledore's "Elder Wand", it resisted his commands because it was unknowingly (to Voldemort) aligned to another wizard after Dumbledore's death (first Draco and then Harry). By contrast, when Harry captured Draco's wand, it changed its allegiance to him and performed well. If Draco had merely been given his wand back, it would not have worked as well for him as before.
27th May 2020
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: Why did Bellatrix Lestrange kill the elf?
Answer: Several reasons. Dobby was once owned by the Malfoy family until Harry freed him, which Bellatrix would consider a betrayal. She knows Harry is close to Dobby and killing the elf will hurt Harry. Dobby, as an elf, is magically powerful and a strong ally to Harry's cause. Having once been owned by the Malfoy family, Dobby has much inner knowledge about them and Voldemort. She was also making one last strike before Harry and the others escaped.
Thank you.
7th May 2020
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: This is actually a question to all of the books and movies, Why did Voldemort wait for the end of the school year to attack Harry Potter? Except, of course, in this movie, where Harry drops out of Hogwarts.
Answer: I agree with the other answer, but it is also a matter of plotting. Rowling has carefully structured each book to cover one school year at Hogwarts, usually starting with the summer break ending and the students preparing to return to school. The ensuing events cover the next nine months, with the story building up to the end-of-the-year climax, just before students part ways to return home for another summer. This formula allows for a continual timeline with only short breaks in-between major events. Otherwise, the story's momentum would slow down and much exposition would be needed to fill in gaps.
So basically, it's plot armor. Besides the main antagonist of the story is Voldemort so therefore he should be in the climax where it deals around him except in the third film/book. This answer makes me think that Voldemort really cares for Harry's education. ;-)
Answer: He didn't plan all these attacks except for the Goblet of Fire one. It took so long for Quirrel to get the stone, it took Voldemort's soul in the diary that long to influence Ginny and take control of her, it required the triwizard tournament finals to attack Harry. All these things just took till the end of the school year to happen.
What about in Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince?
In Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince he was gathering strength, both personally and his army. In Order of the Phoenix the story is more about trying to convince the wizarding world that Voldemort is back and Voldemort trying for as long as possible to not draw attention to himself so it's easier to recruit, get stronger, etc. He is also busy with the prophecy, trying to get to it without exposing himself (thus using Harry to do it), knowing it is the key to his survival. In Half-Blood Prince Voldemort wants Dumbledore dead before he goes further with any other planning. Initially Draco is ordered to do it but he takes almost the entire schoolyear to do it, until he eventually manages to get deatheaters enter the school. It's not planned by the villain, but makes sense to have an entire year at Hogwarts continue each and every time. Until eventually Voldemort starts his coup.
In Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort didn't want to reveal himself as most of the Wizarding world didn't believe he was back. As such he used his Death Eaters to try and take the prophecy from the Department of Mysteries. He only arrived at the Ministry late on as it was an optimal chance to kill Harry, Fudge seeing him wasn't intended. In the Half Blood Prince, Voldemort was afraid of fighting Dumbledore and the only way he could duel him personally would be to attack Hogwarts which would be unwise. Again, he used his Death Eaters or in this case Draco Malfoy to try and assassinate Dumbledore.
Voldemort wasn't afraid to fight Dumbldore in Half-Blood Prince, he was trying to kill Dumbledore whilst Dumbledore was protected by Hogwarts, he couldn't get to him. So he had Draco do it.
He assigned Draco to do it as a consequence of what his father failed to retrieve, which is the prophecy.
2nd Oct 2013
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: In the movie, the team of snatchers were able to smell Hermione's perfume through the protective spells that she put up. This may seem silly, but why did she have perfume on? It seems quite careless on her part and there was absolutely no reason for her to have it on for their mission, so why the perfume?
Answer: They aren't exactly staying in 4-star hotels and showering every day. Camping is dirty, and with that comes certain odors. And that can get unpleasant in close quarters. It's likely the perfume was her way of countering that. In that instance, sure, her perfume may have been a tip off, but it's not unreasonable to assume that that doesn't come up all that much.
Answer: Hermione may have wanted to smell as fresh as possible while living in such cramped quarters with Harry and Ron, but the only reason she is shown wearing perfume is because it is a plot device. It shows how the protective charms around the camp work and that they are not completely full-proof as loud sounds, smells, etc. can penetrate them. It was also to build suspense by having Hermione face-to-face with a snatcher who can smell her presence but not see her. One bad move on her part, and the Trio could have been exposed.
7th Oct 2019
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: When Harry is brought into Malfoy Manor, Draco is told to confirm that it's really him. Even though Harry's face is jinxed, Draco knows that it's him, so why did he lie and say it wasn't?
Answer: Because at his core and despite being an unpleasant person, Draco was a decent and humane person who never could step over the line into being evil. He could not bring himself to betray Harry, knowing he and the others would be killed, and he could not have lived with that guilt. Dumbledore and Snape understood this about Draco, and worked to help him keep his humanity.
That is the moment when Draco is now a good person.
4th Aug 2019
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: 2 questions: 1. What Is the significanceof the Deathly Hallows story (Luna's dad wears it around his neck, is it some sort of religion?), and 2. Why did Dumbledore draw the symbol in correspondence with Grindlewald?
Answer: It's a bit complicated. The Deathly Hallows were not tied to any religion but to mythology. They were the three powerful and revered magical objects (the Elder Wand, the Resurrection Stone, and the Cloak of Invisibility) that, through history and legend, were believed to give whoever possessed them immense power and mastery over death. The Deathly Hallows symbol, like the one Mr. Lovegood wore, is a circle, a triangle, and a straight line that represent the three objects.Voldemort only coveted the Elder Wand, wielded by Dumbledore, because it was the most powerful wand in the world. Dumbledore won the wand from his former friend, the evil wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, after defeating him in a fierce duel. Mr. Lovegood merely serves as a plot device to explain the significance and lore of the Hallows that were tied to Harry's ancestors, the Peverells. Dumbledore placed the Deathly Hallows symbol in the book as a clue to Hermione about the Elder Wand's importance. In the book, when Harry became the Elder Wand's master, he chose to return it to Dumbledore's tomb; in the movie, he destroys the wand. He deliberately dropped the Resurrection Stone in the Forbidden Forest so that no-one, including himself, would be tempted to summon a spirit from the Netherworld. He kept the cloak, that he had inherited from his father. Harry understood that truly "mastering" death was not fearing it.
29th Jul 2014
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: Is there any other way that Hermione could have possibly protected her Muggle parents from Voldemort and his followers besides erasing their memories, like casting a protection spell over them similar to what was done with Harry for the past 17 years or taken them to the Burrow to be protected, or even Grimmauld Place?
Chosen answer: Any of those options would provide some degree of protection, but, should Voldemort ultimately triumph, it's extremely likely that those measures would eventually be circumvented by his forces, leaving her parents entirely at his mercy. By erasing herself entirely from their memories, they cannot be used against her, as they cannot be linked to her (it's reasonable to assume that Hermione would also have arranged for any files linking her to them or that address to be destroyed or altered as well). Erasing their memories also has the side effect of sparing her parents from grief should she fall in the ensuing conflict.
In the book, in addition to erasing their memories, Hermione also sent her parents to live in Australia, further removing them from danger. She not only erased their memories to prevent them from being tortured and divulging any information, but if she was killed, they would not grieve the loss of their only child for the rest of their lives.
28th Dec 2018
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: I can't remember if this is covered in the books, but at the start of this movie, the Dursleys are seen packing up and leaving (because Harry has turned or is about to turn 17 so they can't protect him anymore), but since they've always not wanted to get involved with the magical world side of things (Petunia hating Lily for being a witch, Vernon not wanting Harry to be happy or going to Hogwarts etc), why would they just pack up and leave on Harry's word that they can't protect him anymore by living with him because of what will happen when he turns 17? Was it all explained to them in the letter Dumbledore left with baby Harry in the "Philosopher's Stone" about how Harry had to live with them until he was 17, and that Lily and James had been killed by this powerful person who they needed to protect Harry from or was it another way?
Answer: This is better explained in the books. The Durselys did not wish to leave their home, but the Ministry of Magic convinced them it was imperative that they vacate the house or else risk being killed by Voldemort. He would target them simply because they were Harry's relatives. The Ministry arranged to move and hide them until Voldemort could be defeated. Aunt Petunia hated the wizarding world, but she knew what Voldemort could do to her family once Harry's magical protection lapsed on his 17th birthday.
27th Nov 2018
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: If Voldemort is now controlling the Ministry of Magic, why does Dolores Umbridge have a position there? In Order of the Phoenix, she refused to believe that he had returned. I wonder why he didn't kill her for opposing him.
Answer: Umbridge was an opportunistic collaborator, and once Voldemort took power, she became complicit in order to advance her own career. She never opposed Voldemort, she, like many others, simply believed he had been killed years before.
She never opposed Voldemort because she was allied with him.
Answer: She refused to acknowledge it openly, that doesn't mean she didn't believe it, or hope for it.
She knew that he returned, but was allied with him all along.
25th Mar 2018
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: I've heard that Lucius was right in Voldemort's inner circle so why is he treated even worse than Pettigrew?
Answer: In addition, Lucius is directly responsible for the destruction of his first horcrux, the diary, for the frivolous reason of trying to discredit Arthur Weasley.
Voldemort was angry with Lucius because he repeatedly failed him. Lucius smuggled the Diary Horcrux into Hogwarts via Ginny, the plan failed. Lucius also failed to retrieve the prophecy orb from the Ministry of Magic, resulting in a huge battle and certain Death Eaters being sent to Azkaban prison. Voldemort usually severely punished anyone who failed him.
Except Voldemort was still in hiding in Albania when Lucius did this. He never told Lucius to give it to Ginny.
Lucius took advantage of an opportunity to use Ginny to get the Diary into Hogwarts rather than as an act to discredit Arthur. He couldn't risk giving it to Draco, who he would not have trusted to carry out the mission.
Except that Lucius putting Tom Riddles' diary into Ginny's cauldron happened in "The Chamber Of Secrets." Not in this movie. The question was why Voldemort treated Lucius even worse then Pettigrew.
It might have happened in an earlier movie, but that doesn't mean Voldemort forgot.
27th Jan 2018
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: When Harry, Ron and Hermione arrive at the Lovegood house, why do they all sigh Luna's name?
Answer: Luna has an odd, quirky personality and does not interact well with people or view life as others normally do. Harry, knowing what it's like being an outcast, likes her, but she tries his patience. Ron does not particularly like her, and both he and Hermione generally avoided her at Hogwarts, even though she was a member of Dumbledore's Army. Harry, Ron, and Hermione know they need help from Luna's father. He, too, is rather eccentric, and the three are just preparing themselves for what the coming interaction is going to be like.
21st Jan 2018
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: Is it known what Mundungus was selling that man in diagon alley?
16th Dec 2017
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: I know Voldemort has lost all faith in Lucius, but why break his wand when he is needing a wand to kill Harry?
Answer: He didn't break it. Lucius' wand had some kind of custom-made handle which Voldemort snapped off when he confiscated it.
Answer: Lucius' wand was part of his walking stick. The wand, that was attached to an ornate silver handle, fit into the cane's shaft and was removable. Lucius can be seen removing the wand from the cane at the end of Chamber of Secrets when he was about to curse Harry. When Lucius hands the wand to Voldemort, the Dark Lord detaches the silver handle from it. The "snapping" that was heard was an added sound effect that was a bit overdone.
3rd May 2016
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: I know that I've seen a clip of Narcissa telling Voldemort that he will always be welcome at the Malfoy's house (she does not say this in the book). Is there an extended version of the scene somewhere?
Answer: I have not seen this scene in any version of HP and the Death Hallows 1. Movies often film more scenes than what end up in the final version. If they are seen, it is usually in the DVD "Extras" of deleted scenes, in movie trailers shown in theaters, are posted online, or are added to extended versions of the movie. I suspect this particular scene was shown in a theatrical trailer.
25th Feb 2016
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: This question is more of an overall question for the series. In Half-blood Prince Tom Riddle asks professor Slughorn if it is possible to create 7 horcruxes. In the movie, once the locket is destroyed, Ron says to Harry "3 more to go". If my count is correct, they destroyed the diary, Dumbledore destroyed the ring, and now the locket. That would leave the goblet, the diadem, and Nagini. In total there are only 6, and at this point, neither Harry nor Voldemort know that Harry is the 7th. So basically the question is, if Harry knew that Voldemort Planned on making 7 horcruxes, why do they only search for 6? Is it possible that I am completely overlooking a major plot detail?
Chosen answer: Voldemort wanted to divide his soul into seven pieces by making six Horcruxes and leaving one soul shard inside his body. He made six Horcruxes using Tom Riddle's diary, Marvolo Gaunt's Ring, Helga Hufflepuff's cup, Salazar Slytherin's locket, Rowena Ravenclaw's diadem, and Nagini. Harry Potter was also a Horcrux, but that was never Voldemort's intention. He accidentally (and unknowingly) created a seventh Horcrux when he attempted to kill baby Harry. That meant there were actually eight soul shards in all: the six horcruxes that Voldemort intentionally made, the accidental one he created that was Harry's scar, and the soul shard left inside Voldemort's body.
Answer: They never knew about the seventh as they never heard what it was. They thought he just didn't make it.
18th Feb 2016
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: This is a two part question. 1) If Snape wants Harry to have the sword of Gryffindor, why would he place it at the bottom of a frozen pond instead of placing it somewhere more accessible? 2) Does the locket try to choke Harry because it senses the threat posed by the presence of the sword?
Chosen answer: 1) Snape's motive for hiding the sword in the pond is never explained "in the movie." As for the book, it explicitly states that Dumbledore instructed Snape to give the sword to Harry when possible, but make it so it takes bravery and courage to acquire, like a true Gryffindor. Snape then found they were in the Forest of Dean, and he himself placed the sword there. 2) The Locket was partially sentient and could sense that the sword was a danger to it.
If he placed it somewhere anyone could access, the sword might get into the wrong hands.
16th Dec 2015
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: Why is it necessary for Draco to confirm that the real Harry has been captured by the bounty hunters? Lucius and Bellatrix have each dealt with Harry before.
Answer: Lucius and Bellatrix were unable to confirm Harry's identity because Hermione had jinxed his face to disguise him just before the snatchers captured them. They are fairly certain it is Harry, but as Bellatrix says, if they summon Lord Voldemort, and they are wrong, he will kill them all. Of all the Death Eaters at Malfoy Hall, no one knows Harry better than Draco, having spent more time with him because they were schoolmates. Lucius and Bellatrix have to be absolutely sure that this is Harry Potter.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: Apparition is not an easy spell to use. Wizards are only allowed to apparate at age 17 and are given lessons from that age. Ron definitely has never apparated before, only Harry and Hermione. It's highly unlikely they would have been able to take Ron along with apparition (side-along apparition) in the stressful situation without danger. If you do it wrongly, you get what is called "splinching," meaning parts of your body won't arrive at the destination. Ron already has injuries because of that. So, in short, it's too dangerous for them to try to apparate out of the situation.
lionhead
Ron took the Apparating class at Hogwarts with Harry and Hermione. He failed his first license exam only because an overly-strict Ministry tester noticed he splinched some eyebrow hairs. Ron most certainly became practiced at it while hunting the Deathly Hallows. A hasty exit can be dangerous, however, as when Hermione hastily apparated herself, Harry, and Ron to escape the Ministry of Magic and is how Ron got his shoulder splinched.
raywest ★